Daniel Pipes writes that he was too raised (sort of) as a Muslim. And that means that his life is at risk not just because he's a presidential candidate, but also because he's a high-profile heretic, with a death sentence over his head, based on the teachings of his former religion. Not that it's a reason not to vote for him in itself, but this strikes me as a much more interesting religious problem than either Romney or Huckabee have.

Of course, it's also interesting that, in all its Obama worship, the MSM continues to try to whitewash this away, accusing Pipes of spreading "falsehoods."

[Update a few minutes later]

Heh: "...isn't it a bit odd that the leading candidate for 'change' is a Chicago Democrat?"

Speaking of Chicago, if it is perceived that Hillary steals the nomination from him now, via super delegates and the like, expect Denver to make the events from four decades ago in that city look like a matronly tea party.

Who cares, Obama is a Christian now. That's all that is important to me, even though even that shouldn't be important. Maybe he is a closet Mormon, which shouldn't be important either. Except to classical liberals who care about such things.

On his apostasy, Yeah, I guess Muslims will want to kill the Christian Obama more than they would want to kill George Bush. Clearly a rivetingly interesting proposition!

The danger he faces from nuts on the right is probably greater:

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NATION/415598644/1001

I live & work just outside Chicago.

Obama isn't (and hasn't been) part of the Chicago (Daley) machine. When he ran for US Senate he defeated the chosen Democratic machine candidate in the primary.

I also recall predicting the rise of Obama and the collapse of Hillary several months ago.

Most likely, electing BHO would help to create some goodwill with moderate Muslims (because of his childhood ties to Islam); but it could actually antagonize extremists (because he turned away from Islam).

With that said, I don't think the opinion of non-Americans should count for much in selecting a president. Whether the world's Muslims like BHO or not rates extremely low in my consideration of him as a candidate.

Like all religious matters, what the holy book really says is less important than what people who claim to follow that book think it says. Daniel Pipes can't declare him an apostate. He isn't really an apostate until some googly-eyed mullah lays down a fatwa to that effect. (Maybe one has - I don't follow the googly-eyed mullah press.)

Such a fatwa would be a huge boon to Obama. It would undercut those on the far right who are suspicous he's really a closet Muslim.

I love this smack-down of Hillary:

In the interview, Sawyer asked Obama what he thought of how Clinton has been conducting her campaign:

Sawyer: "Do you get angry at her?"

Obama: "Not really. I find the manner in which they've been running their campaign sort of depressing, lately. It was interesting in the debate, Sen. Clinton saying 'don't feed the American people false hopes. Get a reality check, you know?' I mean, you can picture JFK saying, 'we can't go to the moon, it's a false hope. Let's get a reality check.' It's not, sort of, I think, what our tradition has been."

After Obama won Iowa and during his victory speech the crowd began to chant:

"USA! USA! USA!"

When was the last time that happened at a Democratic political rally?

Who says Daniel Pipes can't issue a fatwa?

If Pipes can, then I can. I hereby declare that it is the sacred duty of all Muslims to loosen up.

Heh, I see Obama is attempting to steal the title of "the next JFK" from Clinton. As I've said before, if yyou want to be the next JFK, you better hope you're running against the next Nixon.

Most likely, electing BHO would help to create some goodwill with moderate Muslims (because of his childhood ties to Islam); but it could actually antagonize extremists (because he turned away from Islam).

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I would like to have a President who knows he is personally a target for these nutcases. Such knowledge tends to focus the mind on the real problem. And yes, if such fatwa were issued before November 2008, it would be a huge boon for Obama.

Every time I hear some Democrat comparing himself to JFK, it reminds me of one of the all time great political put-downs from years ago.

"My opponent has compared himself to Lincoln which is true - if you can imagine a short, fat, dishonest Lincoln."

Unfortunately, the same is true for most Republicans who claim to be the next Reagan.

Well, Obama isn't short, fat, or dishonest. And he obviously delights in and reveres words. He just needs to work on being a manic-depressive.

Well, Obama isn't short, fat, or dishonest. And he obviously delights in and reveres words. He just needs to work on being a manic-depressive.

He isn't Kennedy, either. Can you picture Obama or just about any other current Democrat saying something like this:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

...

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

From JFK's Inaugural Address

Or, for that matter, his call for broad based to stimulate the economy?

In a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962, President Kennedy gave what could stand today as an eloquent statement of the supply- side case, particularly as it relates to budget deficits and tax rates.

He said:

''Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.

''In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.''

That last post was by me. I didn't mean it to be anonomous.

Are tax rates today higher than when JFK took office?

He isn't Kennedy, either. Can you picture Obama or just about any other current Democrat saying something like this:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Quite easily. Rhetoric is cheap. Those words came from the same man who abandoned soldiers to die on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, replaced national defense with deliberate weakness (MAD), and sought "peaceful coexistence" with Communism.

"Quite easily. Rhetoric is cheap. Those words came from the same man who abandoned soldiers to die on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, replaced national defense with deliberate weakness (MAD), and sought "peaceful coexistence" with Communism."

I want to let you know, that is a terrible thing to say about Ted Sorenson!

The danger he faces from nuts on the right is probably greater

Yeah, a lot of people still thought, even into the 1990s, that they could blame the right-wing extremist atmosphere in Texas for the would-be Soviet defector who assassinated JFK.

I was going to ask when was the last time a right-winger did actually carry out a political assassination in the U.S., but I suppose James Earl Ray qualified. Any others?